Framing, Public Diplomacy, and Anti-Americanism in Central Asia

Abstract

The US State Department increasingly relies on efforts of public diplomacy to improve America’s image abroad. We test the theoretical efficacy of these efforts through an experiment. Participants were recruited in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. All but those participants randomly assigned to a control group read a quote about religious tolerance and pluralism in the United States. We varied the attribution of this quote to President Bush, to an unnamed US Ambassador, to an ordinary American, or to no one. We then asked respondents a battery of questions about their opinions of the United States before and after a long discussion with other participants about the United States. We find that the identity of the messenger matters, as those who read the quote attributed to Bush tended to have lower opinions of the United States. After the discussion, these views partially dissipated. Post‐discussion views were more heavily influenced by how other participants viewed the United States. After controlling for the source and location of the discussion, when the discussion took place among people with more positive initial views of the United States, views of the United States improved. However, when there was a large range of views in the discussion, post‐discussion views of the United States were relatively worse. Based on this study, we suggest new directions for the conduct of public diplomacy.

The constitution and effects of country images: Theory and measurement of a central target construct in international public relations and public diplomacy

“…Integral to the country image are the relationship between countries (Cottam 1977;Jervis 1976), the strengths and weaknesses of a country and its status as an enemy (Boulding 1956(Boulding , 1959Cottam 1977;Holsti 1967;Shimko 1991;Silverstein, Holt 1989;White 1965). Cuddy et al (2007) and Fiske et al (2007Fiske et al ( , 1999 In political science, country images are researched mostly in the subfield of international relations, often with regard to the concept of public diplomacy (Leonard et al 2002;Schatz, Levine 2010;Vickers 2004). A positive country reputation facilitates common understanding in the international system (Wang, 2006) and increases the political action ability of a nation-state (ibid.).…”

“…the strategic communication of a nation-state aimed at enhancing the country's reputation among foreign publics (see Leonard et al 2002;Schatz, Levine 2010;Vickers 2004). A positive country image and reputation is seen as a means of building common understanding in the international system (Wang, 2006), thereby increasing the political action ability of a nation-state (ibid.).…”

The 4D Model of the country image: An integrative approach from the perspective of communication management

“…Within the subfield of international relations country images are studied mostly with regard to the concept of public diplomacy, i.e., the strategic communication of a nation-state aimed at enhancing the country's reputation among foreign publics (see Leonard et al, 2002;Schatz and Levine, 2010;Vickers, 2004). A positive country image and reputation is seen as a means of building common understanding in the international system (Wang, 2006), thereby increasing the political action ability of a nation-state (Vickers, 2004).…”

Listening to Outsiders: The Impact of Messenger Nationality on Transnational Persuasion in the United States

“…), the UN Secretary General (Guardino and Hayes ), countries (Ashmore et al. ), and national leaders (Goldsmith and Horiuchi ; Schatz and Levine ; Dragojlovic , ) on domestic public opinion. Because these are real, multi‐faceted figures that have established political reputations, this work cannot tell us whether the nationality of an actor drives persuasion, or whether the messenger's other characteristics or the quality of the advocacy explain public attitudes.…”